In Gordon v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a contract between a private party and the United States was valid. The case involved a contract between the United States and a private party, Gordon, for the construction of a lighthouse. Gordon had completed the construction of the lighthouse, but the United States refused to pay him for his work. Gordon sued the United States for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Gordon and the United States was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose. The Court also held that the United States was liable for breach of contract because it had failed to pay Gordon for his work. The Court's decision in Gordon v. United States established that contracts between private parties and the United States are valid and enforceable. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving contracts between private parties and the United States.

In Gordon v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for the sale of public lands in order to pay off debts owed by states was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not unconstitutional and affirmed the lower court's decision. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority under Article IV of the Constitution when it passed such a law without obtaining consent from all affected states. He argued further that even if Congress had obtained consent from all affected states, they still could not have passed such a law because it would be an infringement on state sovereignty and thus violate both Articles I and X of the Constitution as well as other provisions which protect state autonomy over their own affairs. In conclusion, he believed that allowing Congress to pass laws like this one would lead to dangerous consequences for individual liberty since any future legislation could potentially interfere with matters traditionally left up to each state’s discretion or control.